Early? Mongolian metal bottle

[RW]

 Hello Everyone,
 This one was recently acquired at auction, along with a faceted metal bottle. the decorative details are similar to those found in some Kangxi porcelain, while the stone color choice as demonstrated in the famille verte porcelains given later in the thread from Sotheby's sale this past March connect the bottle to the decorative painting's of the period by the alternating color band decoration at the base of each- Not drawing correlations here with the style in general, only the decorative band
 
 

[George]

Really nice bottle Kevin. I like it quite a bit.. Really nice description too.. Great job !

I think rather than being a lappet band, perhaps those are lucky bats. The stones at the base could be meant to represent a paddle border design.  The symbols around the center stone could be either for clouds, scrolling clouds, or possibly silk worms.. But I may be off on that .

It is a nice looking Mongolian bottle, and congratulations on winning it !

[YT]

Dear Kevin,

This is a late Mongolian bottle. Earlier ones tend to use more coral and turquoise as inlays while your bottle uses malachite and coral. All these three are favoured inlays among the Mongolian royalties.

Nice looking bottle though.

Cheers,
YT

Modified: deleted a certain statement 

[George]

Earlier ones tend to use more coral and turquoise as inlays while your bottle uses malachite and coral.

I did not think about or know that..  Will remember this YT..

[RW]

Dear YT
Very grateful for the information you graciously provided. And it's always a bit reassuring when a great collector like yourself gives an approval, I appreciate that, too

George,  thank you for your post. W/the decorative band, looking closely at them, they appear to be urns with a "v" at the mouth and incised vertical lines displaying prominently around the neck area of each image
Glad you like it

Best,

Kevin

[RW]

 The inclination would be that if we are to assume the Bonham's pieces are fakes, the subject matter at least should be representative of the period, still establishing the connection between the Mongolian metalwork in the bottle I show and Kangxi period porcelain.

While also the bottle may be a revival piece, produced later in the Qing period, it exhibits the old style production methods which are absent in the later works which use an abundance of turquoise and thin twisted wire settings, as opposed to the famille verte color choice with incised heavier settings shown here

A blue and white from Christie's in the link below with a similarly shaped cartouche with some sawtoothed banding, among more geometric patterns

 http://www.christies.com//lotfinder/lot/a-blue-and-white-immortals-phoenix-tail-5992468-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5992468&sid=1406144f-f596-4aa5-b32b-dacbdc05976b

Kangxi famille verte floral cup with alternating red green banding at the base from Sotheby's Asia week sale 2016:
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/saturday-at-sothebys-asian-art-n09481/lot.1441.html

[George]

 

While also the bottle may in fact be a revival piece, produced later in the Qing period, it exhibits the old style production methods which are absent in the later works which use an abundance of turquoise an thin twisted wire settings

And I agree with you Kevin...

[RW]

 Thank you George
 While given the likely designation of an early Kangxi bottle, rather than a revival in the rare famille verte colors, like the Sotheby's example given above with similar banding at the base, and unlike the more common stone choice of the period bottles as YT had advised of, I may from time to time add to this topic

Best,
Kevin

 Below is a photo of what I believe YT was referring to as a 20th C Kangxi revival silver bottle with stone choice in the famille verte dominant colors

[George]

 Below is a photo of what I believe YT was referring to as a 20th C Kangxi revival silver bottle with stone choice in the famille verte dominant colors

I think correct Kevin... Let's see what YT says..

[YT]

Dear Kevin and George,

What I know about Mongolian bottles are little compared to Joey and the rest.

I have always like this bottle https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/19263/lot/11/
The silver carvings are quite fine and the turquoise has oxidized to a very nice opaque light green with inclusions. I saw that in Kevin's second Mongolian bottle which I cannot find now.

Cheers,
YT

[RW]

Dear Yt
Many thanks for your observations. Depending on quality and contact substances turquoise which is porous may resist color change naturally,  so no change may be a very good thing in terms of quality. Fading would be due to the light exposure and quality of a natural example.
A darkened stone may be untreated and lesser quality so that the color changes with exposure to the elements
Best,

Kevin

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Dear Kevin,

     When I first saw your Kangxi attribution to a Mongolian-type bottle, I was quite dubious. I have always 'known' that these bottles are mid-19th C. or later.

     But then I started to look carefully at your bottle. The work does NOT look to me like that of the mid- or later- 19th C. and early 20th C. wares. Among other things, I noticed that parts of the design had a ring-punched surface, which was used in the late Ming period on a series of Arabic-inscribed bronze wares, and other metal wares. The feeling is one of age. I like your bottle, and while it might not be Kangxi, it could well be one of the earliest examples of this type I've ever seen. 

      By the way, I agree with George that those are little bats, the rebus for 'fu' or blessing.

Best,
Joey

[RW]

Dear Joey

 Shalom,
    Many thanks to you for looking at this one for me and sharing your expertise here.
   You have confirmed some of my own observations in regards to a natural division which separates this one from similar bottles that were made from say the  Daoguang reign or later, in terms of character and quality. Those examples in these terms would appear to be copies in comparison of what I believe to be the much older bottle here. And, with so much Ming- Qing character that is absent in the later metal bottles, that timeframe designation fits best

Happy Passover

Best,
Kevin

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear Kevin,
perhaps I did not fully understood your meaning, but really I can’t see what your bottles has to do with famille verte porcelain. Which is the connection? Only because of the lappet or the ruyi borders? A great quantity of Chinese porcelain has that. Famille verte is related to a precisely identified type of enamels decoration, in a precise historical context. To me is out of place to connect your bottle to that.
Agree with YT, the two pieces from Bonhams are most probably not Kangxi. I have seen several times wrong attributions made by Bonhams San Francisco.
Kind regards
Giovanni

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Dear Kevin,

     Thank you for posting the example, which indeed is much better than most bottles of this type.
BUT I was referring to the period ca.1850-1920 for the majority of this type.
I said nothing about Daoguang, though my suggestion was that the big group is from after his reign to after the end of the Qing Dynasty.
    As far as I'm concerned, while this bottle could conceivably date as early as ca.1680 (ie., Kangxi),  I'd feel more comfortable dating it to ca.1750-1850, or the Qianlong/Jiaqing/Daoguang reigns.

    Like Giovanni, I found any reference to Famille Verte porcelain totally irrelevant, and in fact, distracting. I like the idea of comparing decorative details on snuff bottle to those on other types of wares, to attempt to define elements which are from the same period. But, you have to anchor it more securely.  Also, Giovanni knows a lot lot more about Chinese porcelain than I do...    

   Still, regardless of the date, definitely a fine example which dates to the 'Classical Snuff  Bottle period' (a pretentious term invented by a certain UK dealer, to refer to snuff bottles produced when they were in vogue).

    Best,
Joey

Dear Joey

 Shalom,
    Many thanks to you for looking at this one for me and sharing your expertise here.
   You have confirmed some of my own observations in regards to a natural division which separates this one from similar bottles that were made from say the  Daoguang reign or later, in terms of character and quality. Those examples in these terms would appear to be copies in comparison of what I believe to be the much older bottle here. And, with so much Ming- Qing character that is absent in the later metal bottles, that timeframe designation fits best

Happy Passover

Best,
Kevin

[RW]

Dear Joey, Giovanni

 thank you each for posting your concerns about connections which I am making to period decorative patterns in porcelain, and I hope I am being clear,  the reference is only to the decorative borders, not the themed imagery.

the Sotheby's example in the famille verte style mentioned above has the same alternating red-green color pattern at the base as w/my bottle, and this is opposed to a coral turquoise pattern. If the style of the day as favored by Kangxi was the famille verte then a similar stone color choice would have been very appropos

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/saturday-at-sothebys-asian-art-n09481/lot.1441.html

another with the same red-green famille verte connection

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/saturday-at-sothebys-asian-art-n09481/lot.1442.html

also, if we don't accept that the copies or fakes from the Bonham's sale are at least correct in styling for the Kangxi period, there are other examples to draw from for dating purposes, as given above

Best,
Kevin

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Dear Kevin,

      I got your differentiation, but want you to understand my point, and I suspect, Giovanni's.
And that is that once a design exists, it can be, and in Chinese art, Will Be, copied after. Whether as an 'homage' or simply to fake. So the same border or other detail simply means that it can possibly be, but usually is not, from the same period as the example you are using. Which itself could possibly be a fake imitating Kangxi!

     The Chinese artisans were and are amazing at imitating and faking. And they have the patience needed to do really great fakes!   I remember reading somewhere, that in Han Dynasty, certain Chinese artisans copied Shang Dynasty vessels, and buried them or hid them in a cave; so that hundreds of years later, their descendants could sell the Han period Shang fakes for genuine Shang prices!

     I honestly believe that there is a small chance this bottle could turn out to be late Kangxi; but I have a much stronger feeling that it is Qianlong, or Jiaqing; and it could even be Daoguang. But honestly, when I collected all types of snuff bottles, if I could have presented this example as a genuine example from Qianlong, Jiaqing or Daoguang in my own collection's Metal category, I'd have been very proud indeed. Kangxi is pushing it a bit, frankly.

Best,
Joey

   

[RW]

  Dear Joey,
   I greatly appreciate your input which will help guide me in some further research on the topic

 It is the mix of Ming style metalwork as we each see but possibly differently, in the many aspects of the detailing, combined with what we know is exhibited in the early Qing porcelains that intrigues me. And, we may not agree on this, it would be a greater stretch for me if a later metalworker learned the Ming/ Kangxi style techniques and then combined them w/what we know of Kangxi period decorative borders to produce the bottle. Fortunately or not, the metalwork in the many examples that followed in the time line just wasn't done in the same manner as displayed here. And,
furthering a possible Ming designation to the metalwork and one which seems absent in bottles of what we know from the 1750-1850 date range given is the characteristic frame drawn around each individual stone setting at the base. In the link below is a Ming blue and white porcelain bowl with a similarly designed border. The border on each of the 2 famille verte examples shows no such framing technique.
 
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/important-ming-porcelain-from-a-private-collection-hk0489/lot.217.html

A 2nd Ming porcelain example with the same drawn frame technique:
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/meiyingtang-collection-4-hk0437/lot.37.html

And to further this point, if the objective of the metal worker was to copy the Kangxi border - why would he go all the way back to the Ming period pieces to create the elaborate framed setting when as in the metalwork for the date range given, 1750 -1850 a single frame or one with less detail, as I believe copies from that date range might show- would have sufficed?  rather, it is more likely that the worker followed the accepted standards of the period-  which again would point to the Ming/ Qing timeframe of production


Best,

Kevin

[Joey Silver / Si Zhouyi 義周司]

Dear Kevin,

     I did NOT understand before, but think I do now. You are not comparing design elements so much as the way they are executed. I see your point, and it is quite compelling.

    The double frames, for example. And the ring punching I had pointed out in an earlier post on this thread. But, Kevin, I think that this still could be an 'homage' piece, and I am getting close to considering it Palace Workshops.  The reason I think it is Qianlong, is because he was enamoured of the exotic and the archaic. 'Mongolian' style harked back to the Manchu and Mongol nomadic lifestyle, as did decorative Jade archers' rings.

    A real archer's ring would be leather, horn, etc. NEVER Jade, which would shatter, embedding jade shards into the archer's thumb first time the bow chord hit the 'protective' ring, meant to protect the thumb of the hand holding the bow from the chord's backlash.

   I now accept that it could be Kangxi, ca.1660-1721, but am still feeling it is Qianlong to Daoguang. But mine is just a feeling. You have some interesting and possibly compelling arguments. And well researched, too. Well done.

Best,
Joey

[Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush]

Dear Kevin, Joey, all,
sorry but I am not understanding you completely, perhaps. I relly don't see the connection. I can't say all, but really a great quantity of Chinese vases has lappet borders and ruyi or bat borders. Here is an example of the 19th century. Not famille verte. I am not really seeing a special fact that Kevin's bottle has green and red stones. Almost all this type of bottles has green and red stones! They are the most common colors. And about the shape of the stones is the same thing, how would you expect the shape of the stones if not cabochon style, oval, round, or dot shaped?
Kind regards
Giovanni